Brandon

Friday, June 24, 2005

Socialists Unmasked! Democrats Throw Seniors and Poor Out of Homes in Connecticut

Often, when I express concern over a new law or action by government, I get the following response: "Well, I don't do anything wrong, so I don't have anything to worry about."

Perhaps people with that view can explain to me what the residents of the Fort Trumball neighborhood of New London Connecticut did wrong.

Due to a recent Supreme Court decision, their homes are about to be taken away, by armed agents of government if necessary, to make way for a waterfront development of high priced homes and office buildings.

Some of these residents have lived in their homes all their lives. They paid their taxes, they broke no laws, yet their right to continue to enjoy their property has been taken away by local government so that rich developers can make more money.

You think this outrage is being committed by some greedy cabal of Republican politicians and their corporate financial backers? WRONG!

This is a neighborhood of middle and working class families, including many senior citizens, groups that Democrats claim to represent. Readers may recall all that class warfare rhetoric from recent Democrat campaigns: "People versus the powerful" and "two Americas: one for the haves, and one for the have nots." Where are those champions of the people now? Their silence speaks volumes.

In 2004, Senator Hillary Clinton told a California audience: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." As president, Hillary or any Democrat would nominate judges that support that philosophy and continue to undercut the foundation of freedoms for all Americans: the right to personal property.

Newly confirmed Justice Janice Rogers Brown citing conservative scholar Tom Bethell said: "The founders viewed private property as the guardian of every other right." This is one of the "radical, extreme right wing" views that Democrats claimed made her unfit to serve on the bench.

Had Republicans been succesful in confirming Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987 instead of the compromise nominee, Justice Kennedy, we wouldn't be discussing this most recent trampelling of property rights and the constitution.

When the next opening on the Supreme Court occurs you're going to hear alot of Democrats bleating about "preserving the balance" of the court. Is this the balance they're talking about? Increasing the power of government to seize the property of citizens who violate no law?

No comments:

fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator